Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it, resulting in the rejection of an eBookstore application from Sony, a new report claims.

Update: Apple has denied the claim.

The Cupertino, Calif., company has told applications developers, including Sony, that it will no longer allow developers to sell content and provide access to purchases outside the iOS App Store, The New York Times reports.

According to the report, Apple rejected a Sony Reader iPhone application that would let users buy and read e-books from the Sony Reader Store. Steve Haber, president of Sony's digital reading division, said that Apple told Sony that from now on, in-app purchases must go through Apple.

Its the opposite of what we wanted to bring to the market, said Haber. We always wanted to bring the content to as many devices as possible, not one device to one store.

Rival ebook vendor Amazon could stand to lose. Amazon currently offers its Kindle e-book app on Apple's App Store, despite the fact that its Kindle e-reader competes with the iPad and iBookstore. The Kindle got an early start in the e-reading market, but has since lost significant ground to the iPad.

In December of last year, Amazon announced that the third-generation Kindle had become the best-selling product in the online retailer's history. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos also noted at the time that many Kindle purchasers already own an LCD tablet, such as an iPad.

Analysts were taken aback by Apple's new restrictions, as they represent a shift away from recent attempts to be more collaborative.

Last fall, after receiving criticism for App Store restrictions that were viewed as "anti-competitive," Apple removed its ban on third-party development tools. With the more open licensing terms, Adobe resumed development of its Packager for iPhone tool for porting Flash to iOS.

Rival Google also gained from the changes, as its Google Voice application was accepted into the App Store. After Apple pulled Google Voice-enabled iPhone apps from the App Store, the US FCC launched an investigation of Apple and AT&T.

This sudden shift perhaps tells you something about Apples understanding of the value of its platform, said Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey. Apple started making money with devices. Maybe the new thing that everyone recognizes is the unit of economic value is the platform, not the device.

Later this week, News Corp, in direct partnership with Apple, will unveil The Daily, an experimental iPad-only digital newspaper. Apple's new restrictions could be a preemptive move ahead of the launch of a new subscription feature for the iPad.

Apple has reportedly told several European publishers that it will employ "stricter rules" that forbid free iPad access to paid print subscribers. By doing so, publishers could bypass Apple and its 30 percent commission on App Store transactions.

According to the report, Apple rejected a Sony Reader iPhone application that would let users buy and read e-books from the Sony Reader Store. Steve Haber, president of Sony's digital reading division, said that Apple told Sony that from now on, in-app purchases must go through Apple.

[]

Rival ebook vendor Amazon could stand to lose. Amazon currently offers its Kindle e-book app on Apple's App Store, despite the fact that its Kindle e-reader competes with the iPad and iBookstore. The Kindle got an early start in the e-reading market, but has since lost significant ground to the iPad.

Hmm did the Sony Reader send users to Safari to make purchases, the way Kindle does, or use an in-app access the WebKit API or some other method for buying eBooks within the app itself?

I think Kindle will be fine here. As inconvenient as it is I understand Amazons reasoning for pushing you Safari. Unfortunately, this has made me buy more books on iBookstore despite the poorer selection. I wish Kindle would offer an iPad formatted page that would default to eBooks when you click the link in the Kindle app. Additionally, I would like them to make it easier to bookmark a selection so that I can more easily buy the book, download and load into the Kindle app on my Mac.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Why should Apple allow competing companies to use the iOS platform for free advertisement? May be Apple should just charge them hefty rent for parking on its real estate.

After all Apple iBookstore is not on any other platform. Will Amazon allow iBookstore on Kindle? Will Sony allow iBookstore on any of its e-readers? The answer is NO. SO why should Apple give them a free ride?

Why should Apple allow competing companies to use the iOS platform for free advertisement? May be Apple should just charge them hefty rent for parking on its real estate.

After all Apple iBookstore is not on any other platform. Will Amazon allow iBookstore on Kindle? Will Sony allow iBookstore on any of its e-readers? The answer is NO. SO why should Apple give them a free ride?

But does the Kindle allow 3rd-party apps? This is ‘a’ Wild, Wild West scenario where Apple needs to think this through before moving. If you deny other eBook vendors you risk losing HW sales in the short term and possibly the longterm, but if you allow it you risk losing HW sales in the long term if other vendors can create a good competing product, especially if that competitor allows an easy option for getting books.

I don’t think the correct path is known just yet. A balance of these two will likely happen, but where they draw the line is yet unknown. We’ve see Apple do this very thing with iOS and the SDK since their release. They start small and simple and expand from there. This seems like the best course of action, IMO. The problem with opening too soon is if you make a mistake you can’t easily close it back up without incurring other, potentially worse issues.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I hope Amazon and Apple can work something out, Kindle is one of my favorite iOS apps. It's also one of my favorite Mac apps, but of course if it's banned from the MAS I will just download it from the web.

Wow, it only took a few short years for Apple to become completely evil. If this turns out to be true, I will never buy another iPad again. I use my Kindle and Nook apps all the time. If Apple shuts them out, I will shut Apple out forever.

Wow, it only took a few short years for Apple to become completely evil. If this turns out to be true, I will never buy another iPad again. I use my Kindle and Nook apps all the time. If Apple shuts them out, I will shut Apple out forever.

You recognize that its just speculation and that Apple has allows Kindle since day one even though its likely the iBookstore was a path Apple knew they were going to take well before the Kindle was made for the App Store if we assume this is a natural part of a tablets use, yet you first claim that Apple is evil. I dont think Apple (or any other company for that matter) is any more or less evil than before. I also dont think Apple will pull the plug on the Kindle app simply because closing an already open system can have devastating affects. I cant see doing this for reasons that would affect their bottom line, which is focused on HW sales, no content sales.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

It sounds likes it could eventually go further than that. Is there a possibility down the line that if I could buy ereader content completely separately from the app (that is, without ever opening the app or linking through it), availability of the app itself on the app store might be compromised?

Apple, seriously, this is a step too far. Stop app developers from *linking out* to the internet to purchase things? iTunes doesn't stop you listening to music digitised from a CD - that you bought elsewhere. Pages doesn't stop you opening a research report purchased from a third party. You can even import a commercially purchased PDF in iBooks.

Seriously - I've owned everything from Apple for 20 years. Kindle accounts for 50% plus of the time I spend on my iPad. If that app goes, I won't trash my iPad, but I certainly won't be so keen to upgrade - and I know a stack of people who will simply not buy one and buy a kindle instead: a debate many people are having right now, and the kindle app is a big part of that decision.

Please Apple, I'm a big fan of the controlled experience, but don't do something *this* obnoxious.

Why should Apple allow competing companies to use the iOS platform for free advertisement? May be Apple should just charge them hefty rent for parking on its real estate.

After all Apple iBookstore is not on any other platform. Will Amazon allow iBookstore on Kindle? Will Sony allow iBookstore on any of its e-readers? The answer is NO. SO why should Apple give them a free ride?

Apple wouldnt put their stores on another platform. Can you imagine itunes on android? The problem here is that apple are more closed that communist russia and we all know what happened to them.

Just a week or so ago, we had a debate on why Apple would prohibit a newspaper from allowing access to its news through a free app but to only those who paid the newspaper a subscription fee. Apple gets no financial benefit from either the app nor the subscription. I posed that this was the same as Netflix charging subscription fees to members but allowing them free access to "Watch Instantly" through the free Netflix App. Of course, we are in the dark as to whether Apple has a particular deal with Netflix in this case for either monetary or strategic gain. And now, similarly, it falls to books. Free Kindle and Nook e-reading apps earn Apple nothing, while their owners reap the rewards of e-book sales. I think Apple might be doing something over the anti-competitive line here. It's very similar to the Net Neutrality issue where an ISP chooses which e-commerce websites or online video websites its subscribers can visit or favoring properties it owns.

I recently purchased my first two Kindle e-books but only because the titles weren't available in the iBookstore. I think before they start blocking things like this, they would do well to consider consumers' needs. Of course, in their own self interest, their lawyers should be telling them to back down on this one, because they're in for a big FTC investigation if they proceed.

I'm not saying Apple shouldn't protect its revenue streams, but doing so using draconian measures rather than, as they always have, providing a better product and experience, is not very Apple-like.

And why Apple has to be paid? Is delivering the content, is storing the content.

Are they?
If yes, then absolutely, Apple has a right to charge a fee. But it's not clear.
If not, it just seems to be a biz decision by Apple... because they can. And one, IMO, I do not care for(less choice).

I can import music to iTunes and play it on iOS devices. Not sure this should be any different... IMO.

I wish the author delved into these issues a bit more instead of leaving it to novices like me to speculate.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.

So whats next?
Banning eBay because its not purchasing items with in-app payment?
Removing all newspapers because they log with a code that regular paper subscriber get?
Forbidding ads that aren't iAd because the developer gets paid by the ads and not with inapp? (no really, apple doesn't make any money from admob-ads, the developer does, why shoudn't apple deserve 30% from that too? )
Or only allowing netflix if the subscription is bought with in-app?

The first thing you realize when using the kindle app, is that it does not allow in app purchases. When you want to buy a book it redirects you to the Amazon website, where you purchase the book, and then it does a custom URL call to put you back in to the kindle app for the download. I never liked this setup, but Apple's rules about in app purchase has been the reason since day one. So, basically, nothing to worry about.

So whats next?
Banning eBay because its not purchasing items with in-app payment?
Removing all newspapers because they log with a code that regular paper subscriber get?
Forbidding ads that aren't iAd because the developer gets paid by the ads and not with inapp? (no really, apple doesn't make any money from admob-ads, the developer does, why shoudn't apple deserve 30% from that too? )
Or only allowing netflix if the subscription is bought with in-app?

Seriously apple, this is stupid.

Perhaps Solo got it right on an earlier post, Apple is playing a delicate game here. Have netflix, but no Hulu etc(as a side note, why doesnt Amazon allow its streaming video to iOS devices?). IMO(just a feeling), if Apple allows even one in(netfix, kindle etc), the cat is out of the bag(reeeaar) and they will eventually be forced to let them all in. I think in app content purchase/playing will be viewed(no pun) differently than an in app game upgrade. It will be interesting to see this all play out. IMO the more options the better.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.

And why Apple has to be paid? Is delivering the content, is storing the content.

Apple is not storing nor delivering any content. The content providers have paid studios ( or book publishers) for the rights, they store the rights on their servers, they handle the downloads or streaming. Apple is merely passing back a productID ( which is in itself not fit for purpose as the price doesnt match what people need nor does it generate any information for the content providers if they have to go back to the content owners with sales data).

In-App purchases are extortionate anyway.

BTW I know of a case where the very existence of a website banned an app. No links within the app, no mention of the website in the app. The app played previously bought content. Thats it. Banned.

The first thing you realize when using the kindle app, is that it does not allow in app purchases. When you want to buy a book it redirects you to the Amazon website, where you purchase the book, and then it does a custom URL call to put you back in to the kindle app for the download. I never liked this setup, but Apple's rules about in app purchase has been the reason since day one. So, basically, nothing to worry about.

That is now banned on this new interpretation. All content which can be bought outside iOS is banned. ( Kindle may have a bye).

This is the kind of sh*t I expect from MS...yanking the rug out from under partners and developers after they've invested MS's platform (how many different versions of online music sales did MS support and then later abandon?) It's a deterrent to any developer if they have to worry Apple might change the rules without warning after they've already created an app.

And this is the kind of thing that will give Android a leg up. If you can get your content on an Android device because Apple isn't adding a 30% tax for doing almost nothing (because the purchase interface will be in the app, not iTunes, so what is Apple contributing? nothing).

Quite simply, Apple has a conflict of interest here. They say they want to provide a platform, and yet they also want to sell you the content on that platform. They provide a phone saying it is yours, but won't allow you to do anything with it unless you pay them.

This will, sadly, spur on the jailbreaking crowd, and push people to Android. iPhone leaves you a prisoner to Apple. It's a very nice device, but you're still held at ransom to Apple.

People here are asking why Apple should be forced to put this on their platform? Because your iPhone is owned by you. You have the right to choose the software you put on it.

I, as a developer, no longer buy the bull that is spouted as "protecting customers from viruses" - if that was the case then Apple would simply vet applications, sign those that don't break the rules, offer the option of their store or otherwise, and with Apple's signing allow distribution however the developer wants.

But let's stop deceiving ourselves: This really isnt a platform. It's Apple's way of controlling every part of this device, even when they don't own it. You do.

And before you claim otherwise, I am generally an Apple fanboy and an iPhone Developer who has, until now, always supported Apple.

The first thing you realize when using the kindle app, is that it does not allow in app purchases. When you want to buy a book it redirects you to the Amazon website, where you purchase the book, and then it does a custom URL call to put you back in to the kindle app for the download. I never liked this setup, but Apple's rules about in app purchase has been the reason since day one. So, basically, nothing to worry about.

Just curious, so the downloaded book becomes part of the app?

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.

The guidelines are there, clear to see. If you submit an app that does not adhere to those guidelines, it will be rejected. Is there anything evil or wrong about that?

Sony just have to make purchases work in accordance with the Apple guidelines, as with Kindle, then it will be expected. There is no talk of Apple removing Kindle, this is simply people getting carried away with conspiracy theories based on empty headlines.

The guidelines are there, clear to see. If you submit an app that does not adhere to those guidelines, it will be rejected. Is there anything evil or wrong about that?

Sony just have to make purchases work in accordance with the Apple guidelines, as with Kindle, then it will be expected. There is no talk of Apple removing Kindle, this is simply people getting carried away with conspiracy theories based on empty headlines.

Let me make this clear. I worked on an app with no in-app purchasing which was rejected because a website existed where content could have been previously bought for the app. This is a new reading of 11.2.

What they are doing is a anti-trust violation. It depends on whether people sue, or not.

NO, it's not. People are free to go and buy books for an app, such as kindle. Apple simply don't allow people to do this using their internal functionality. The purchase is taken care of by the third party - like the kindle app, it works just fine.

NO, it's not. People are free to go and buy books for an app, such as kindle. Apple simply don't allow people to do this using their internal functionality. The purchase is taken care of by the third party - like the kindle app, it works just fine.

The company has told some applications developers, including Sony, that they can no longer sell content, like e-books, within their apps, or let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store.

Let me make this clear. I worked on an app with no in-app purchasing which was rejected because a website existed where content could have been previously bought for the app. This is a new reading of 11.2.

Nope, it's the way I've always read 11.2 (and I can't be the only developer who understands the rules or who has had a legal team look over them) and also the way I've understood the restriction of in-app purchasing.

Nope, it's the way I've always read 11.2 (and I can't be the only developer who understands the rules or who has had a legal team look over them) and also the way I've understood the restriction of in-app purchasing.

Its a new ruling on 11.2. Any purchase outside apps is banned.

They may have a different mechanism when The Daily comes out but that is what I am seeing, and what the NYT is reporting.

Well done Apple.
Why should Apple allow competition on the iPhone, iPod, and iPads that it MAKES.
A lot of blood sweat and tears (not the song) went into these wonderful devices.
Did the competition do the same, hell NO, they just copied, and very badly.
Then they hate on Apple, try and destroy it, and then cry like little mumma's boys when Apple fights back. Apple wants you as a user and customer to buy books through iBooks, what is wrong with that, tell me ? Why should it allow Amazon and Sony free rein, no way Jose.
,I for one, will only use Apple stuff and their App store, never the competition, more of you so called Apple fans (I doubt if you really are), should do the same.

Nope, it's the way I've always read 11.2 (and I can't be the only developer who understands the rules or who has had a legal team look over them) and also the way I've understood the restriction of in-app purchasing.

You previously said that Kindle is ok. However an app doing the kindle functionality would now be banned.

There would be no story here is Sony were told to direct all purchases to their website, or to use in-app purchasing for anything bought within the Sony iPad app.

There is a story because Sony have been rejected for showing purchases bought outside the iPad app i.e on another Sony app on Android, on a SOny E-Reader device, on a website even on the iPad, even on the Mac.

Well done Apple.
Why should Apple allow competition on the iPhone, iPod, and iPads that it MAKES.
A lot of blood sweat and tears (not the song) went into these wonderful devices.
Did the competition do the same, hell NO, they just copied, and very badly.
Then they hate on Apple, try and destroy it, and then cry like little mumma's boys when Apple fights back. Apple wants you as a user and customer to buy books through iBooks, what is wrong with that, tell me ? Why should it allow Amazon and Sony free rein, no way Jose.
,I for one, will only use Apple stuff and their App store, never the competition, more of you so called Apple fans (I doubt if you really are), should do the same.

The only excuse I think they have is that - maybe - tomorrow there will be a new model announced with the Daily and they are rejecting apps for now, so they can re-tool. As usual Apple is being secretive.